[Commons-Law] Re: The gates of intellectual property (Lawrence Liang) (Hasit Seth) (Sudhir) (Hasit)

[Supreet Sethi]

Hi all

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:11:05 +0100, matthew fuller <fuller at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Dear Hasit, and all
> 
> the question of why there is a lack of visibility or actuality of
> 'new' software paradigms is a stark one, but perhaps can be broken
> down into a number of sub-questions, amongst which there are many
> opportunities and actual change, the following are a few ideas
> prompted by the discussion
> 

New software paradigm could mean anything depending on which public is
looking at it. Some people would think of "new way of icon
arrangement" as best thing after sliced bread while some other might
consider it software development of garden variety.


> - technological change is often slow, with minute increments being
> made over generations - think of fishing nets for example (braudel is
> good on this in 'capitalism and civilization')  I think we are
> relatively impatient, and too often believe we should be living on
> one end or the other of a kuhnian paradigm shift, or can't yet sense
> the ways in which the changes that do occur, happen
> - the meaning of software changes when it is moved into different
> contexts - i.e. SMS in GSM was originally envisaged as a package
> transfer and logistics tool

I cannot agree more ...



> - it changes also when old functions are given new, or focused
> interfaces - think of early - pre-p2p - file sharing tools such as
> Napster
> - those areas which are generating novel interfaces, for instance
> interactive and immersive art, are relatively marginal and only
> indirectly linked to notions of instrumentality or function that
> predominate in software

Vertical software development, the field where such things happen
requires huge resource input because, it is being developed for a
particular user/organization and might not be of any use to anyone
else hence never reused.



> - 'digital folk' (Goriunova) practices produce small mutations in the
> sense of what is understood as software, as does software art, which
> marks out potentially interesting fields of exploration, see runme.org
> - do permit me to pull your beard on this one Jeebesh but i do think
> that at the scale at which they are operating, the
> `open-laboratory-peer-production`  and related currents *are*
> producing thoughtful and incrementaly significant - as well as some
> awkward, overblown and botched - projects that deserve real attention
> and support, such as, in many ways, apna/opus for instance
> - dominant models of computer science, such as those propagated by
> figures such as Knuth, (despite his evident significance in
> systematically documenting the CS field) attempt to erase cultural
> understandings of software, or lock them into reductive,
> non-experimental platonist ideas of beauty wrapped up in christian
> myth (see, 'Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About')

And allowing us(mere mortals engaged in software practices) to have
certain predictable and repeatedly predictable forms which can be
reused in everyday software development, instead of using in some
cases fundamentally flawed assumptions in procedures/execution



> - we need to build up notions of a 'minor' mode of development of
> software: that produces no 'great works' (or Great Men), that draws
> software out of its function of normalisation, and that emerges out
> off the kind of collective work which people are now beginning to
> imagine and to crack

Its called vertical software, where there is constant engagement
between user who is assumed to have domain knowledge and developer who
can implement that domain knowledge in form of "code". In some (ideal)
case they should be the same person and computer science as a field
has always been driven towards that goal though its not easy to
attain.



> - current hardware architectures, and their development and
> distribution models, tend towards a repeat of the same except faster,
> whilst certain software uses such as gaming and piracy, do (contra
> hardware determinism) make an impact on the circuitry, demanding the
> growth of new hardware forms, you would be hard pushed to find a
> computer to invent with that was not of von neumann architecture.

Those in my opinion are minor overhauls and they do'nt change the
bigger picture in any major way. PC architecture has not changed in
any major form since 80s.



> - linked to the question of hardware is the still stark - and
> underexploited - differences between analogue and digital , the
> 'natural' and formal that explain the limited but still meaningful
> successes of speech-recognition or AI etc.
> - computationality is now embedded in culture at large, software, its
> culture, has seeped out from the computer, not just in artists works
> that explicitly work on that, but in forms of everyday life: people
> being able to think more easily now in terms of networks and
> distributive collaborative modularity for instance, variant
> aesthetics of computationality are thought and sensed through in
> various musics, these things will feed back into software proper


> - much of the thought about software development goes into managing
> more of the same more efficiently, i.e. various programing
> methodologies
> 
Managing large number of small logical units has been what software
development life cycle is all about because its not easy to come up
with "new" sorting or merging  algorithms everyday.



> - nappies to change
> 
> matthew
> 
> 
> >dear Hasit,
> >
> >Thanks for your sobering provocation to think afresh the `question
> >of newness` in software. I do agree with you that the emergence of
> >new ideas in software is fairly interlaced within many contexts and
> >it will be futile to isolate strands in a simplified way.
> >
> >Need to think this simple question that you raise about open source
> >not being able to come up with a `new` breakthrough idea of software
> >( it primarily working on an `imitation` model of creative
> >participation).
> >
> >This leads to an interesting question - how is `newness` produced?.
> >And, why is the `open-laboratory-peer-production` practices of
> >software development not producing fresher imagination of software?
> >
> >Do correct me i am getting you wrong.
> >
> >Thanks for raising this questions.
> >
> >best
> >jeebesh
> >
> >Hasit seth wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Sudhir and Everyone,
> >>
> >>    This is just a subjective take on comp. sci. research in an
> >>attempt to answer Sudhir's query.  I do not believe that there is an
> >>artificial divide between "basic" computer science research done in
> >>Universities and "applied" stuff being done in the industry.
> >>Mathematics that relates to computer science is done largely in
> >>Universities, but fundamental theoretical computer science (which is
> >>some math anyway) is done everywhere.  Best of computer science
> >>theorists Donald Knuth of Stanford is an active programmer though a
> >>mathematician by training.  But Al Aho, who crystallized compiler
> >>research, works at Bell Laboratories and does a lot of theory.  Some
> >>esoteric stuff such as "hard" Artificial Intelligence has only
> >>academic interest because industry sank a lot of money in it without
> >>any good results.  But fields such as searching (Google), computer
> >>vision (Siemens and tons of other companies), speech recognition (IBM,
> >>Microsoft, Matsushita...) have a lot their theory and applications
> >>being done both in academic and industrial world.  Historically,
> >>terrific stuff has come out of  industry "incubators" such as Bell
> >>Labs (UNIX) and Xerox PARC (Ethernet, Mouse, GUI, Laser Printers...).
> >>
> >>      Bigger issue than academic/industry divide is the lack of major
> >>breakthroughs in research.  I understand that many readers of this
> >>list are interested in
> >>Legal/Social/Ethical/Political/Emotional/Activism side of innovation
> >>and not the technical aspects, but any discussion of these aspects of
> >>invention without considering technology issues is bizarre.  Open
> >>source is a reaction to this lack of major innovation in computer
> >>industry.  For example, from a user's viewpoint why should I upgrade
> >>from Windows 95 to Windows XP and pay any extra money for it when all
> >>I get is better eye-candy on screen but nothing significant
> >>functionally?  A group of hackers can get together and clone this OS
> >>and applications and not pay the "windows upgrade tax" to
> >>Microsoft. That is what is Linux today.  Earlier such cloning was
> >>for academic
> >>purposes or just for hacking fun - BSD is a clone of Linux, GNU is a
> >>UNIX clone, GNU/Linux is still a UNIX clone.  Yes, it is "free" - that
> >>is the innovation here! but technology wise? not a major breakthrough.
> >>To say this is NOT to undermine the TREMENDOUS efforts of
> >>BSD/GNU/Linux  hackers,  because in first place writing the code and
> >>then making everything work through a community effort is just a
> >>fantastic achievement. For those who are interested in state of system
> >>software research, Rob Pike of Bell Labs, a respected UNIX hacker,
> >>wrote a paper in 2000 about how system software research has become
> >>stagnant (here: http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/rob/utah2000.pdf)
> >>


Sorry for nitpicking but BSD is not clone of linux, GNU is not a clone
of Unix, and Linux is not Unix clone.



> >>     Now what could be a breakthrough in software?  No predictions.
> >>But take an example:  Continuous speech recognition where user
> >>speaks
> >>normally to computer (with no special microphones, no a priori
> >>training of speech models, etc.; this does mean an intelligent
> >>conversation, but recognizing continuous spoken words syntactically
> >>and semantically) is a tough problem, and any operating
> >>system/application solving that will be a major breakthrough.
> >>Everyone - academia, industry and open source community is trying to
> >>solve this problem since years, and patents are least of hurdles here,
> >>though a lot of approaches (neither of which is entirely workable) are
> >>patented.  And users will pay for such an invention, because they will
> >>see it is a major breakthrough.  If this comes through
> >>industry-patented tech route, people will still pay for it but its
> >>spread will perhaps be a little slower.  Academic debates will
> >>continue about why it is evil to have this patented, but people will
> >>be more interested in getting hands on this technology rather than
> >>debate about it.  If users pay for a better toaster or television,
> >>then why not better software?  If open source community achieves  this
> >>first, the spread will be perhaps much faster.
> >>
> >>The point is not who does it, the point is how to do it? when will it
> >>happen?  Right now the state of research in continuous speech
> >>recognition is like Edison trying thousands of chemical compounds to
> >>build a storage battery with just failures in sight ahead, but a lot
> >>of hope ahead.  In many cases like these, invention is not a David vs.
> >>Goliath fight between open source vs. patents, industry vs. academia
> >>or industry vs. open community.  There may be skirmishes on the
> >>way, but in a bigger picture it is rather every-kind-of-effort
> >>against the
> >>scientifically unknown and uninvented. For business to chase such
> >>tough problems it needs money to keep payroll for programmers
> >>going. For open source community, it needs interest of the
> >>community to be
> >>kept going to solve such long term non-cloning type demanding
> >>problems.
> >>
> >>       In short, invention is not simply Archimedes getting an
> >>"Eureka" idea and running out of his bathtub (modesty and clothing is
> >>not at issue here!)  straight to the Greek patent office and blocking
> >>all invention related to the Eureka and hoarding billions in money by
> >>monopolizing the use of "Eureka" through a patent.  This could happen,
> >>but usually it is lot more complex than this.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Hasit Seth
> >>
> >>
> >>>Message: 2
> >>>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:00:41 +0100
> >>>From: <sudhir at circuit.sarai.net>
> >>>Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Re: The gates of intellectual property
> >>>        (Lawrence       Liang) (Hasit Seth)
> >>>To: Hasit seth <hbs.law at gmail.com>
> >>>Cc: commons-law at sarai.net
> >>>Message-ID: <5cbaf66cc761ec00466ab779c2768c84 at sarai.net>
> >>>
> >>>Dear all
> >>>
> >>>Thanks Hasit for that interesting post on the early computer industry. I
> >>>would suggest that there is one important actor left out of this story -
> >>>the University and Research Institutes!
> >>>
> >>>Most accounts of computer software innovation rely on industry based
> >>>innovation models. As you rightly point out a large part of such innovation
> >>>is generating clones, marginally differentiated for the market. I am
> >>>curious whether innovation in computer software breaks down into the Basic
> >>>and Applied Science categories - where basic and fundamental innovation
> >>>more often occurs in the University and Research Institute rather than the
> >>>software company.
> >>>
> >>>Best
> >>>Sudhir
> >>>
> >>>many firms are the level of innovation  On March 15, 5:04 pm Hasit seth
> >>><hbs.law at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>Interesting article.  The New Zealand patent if it tries to claim XML
> >>>>as being proprietary then it is utterly stupid.  Cannot comment more
> >>>>without reading the text of the patent.
> >>>>
> >>>>I am not a big fan of Microsoft, but as a computer enthusiast I find
> >>>>the characterization of Gates and Microsoft in early PC history is
> >>>>terribly twisted.    Microsoft's DOS OS was the prime reason for
> >>>>personal computing being affordable today.  CP/M the only major "PC"
> >>>>OS around at the time was proprietary.  IBM's PC-DOS (developed by MS)
> >>>>was expensive (or impossible at one stage) for PC Clone makers to
> >>>>license through IBM.  Apple being the paragon of proprietary stuff had
> >>>>no interest (and still doesn't) in licensing its OSs.  MS-DOS is what
> >>>>ran the PC-Clone market.  Technical merits of MS-DOS is a different
> >>>>topic, and GNU certainly didn't make personal computing happen.  If
> >>>>one understands the difficulty that Linux is facing today in
> >>>>supporting thousands of different types of hardware devices from
> >>>>multiple vendors, therein lies the historical value of MS-DOS and
> >>>>Microsoft.  Linux enthusiasts are doing an admirable job of supporting
> >>>>drivers for a lot of hardware but still a lot needs to be done (e.g.,
> >>>>Wireless cards with proprietary firmware are a pain to setup).  DOS
> >>>>ran on every kind of PC clone, and Windows still supports the widest
> >>>>variety of garden hardware.
> >>>>

MS-DOS was created by computer manufacturer Seattle Computer Products
as 86-DOS, commonly known as QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System).
In a sequence of events that would later inspire much folklore,
Microsoft licensed QDOS to IBM on behalf of SCP. Microsoft acquired
the system from SCP shortly before the PC's release

IBM and Microsoft both released versions of DOS. Originally, IBM only
validated and packaged Microsoft developments, and thus IBM's versions
tended to be released shortly after MS's. However, MS-DOS 4.0 was
actually based on IBM PC-DOS 4.0, as Microsoft was by then
concentrating on OS/2 development. Microsoft released its versions
under the name "MS-DOS", while IBM released its versions under the
name "PC DOS"


> >>>>Yes, MS monopolized the Windows Application market, but this deserves
> >>>>a closer look.  But before that on DOS platform, MS just provided the
> >>>>OS - The Wordprocessing package was Wordstar, The Spreadsheet was
> >>>>Lotus 1-2-3 and The Database was dBase III+  - all non-MS
> >>>>applications.  All these non-MS application makers very quite slow in
> >>>>releasing their Windows versions.  Most were so wedded to the text
> >>>>based MS-DOS that they just could not make the transition fast enough
> >>>>(e.g, dBase III+ or Wordstar).  Nobody wanted to develop applications
> >>>>till Windows 3.1 became popular.  MS filled in this space (of course
> >>>>with head start from knowing Windows codebase) with acceptable Apps
> >>>>such as Word and Excel.  Developing these Apps is hardly a trivial
> >>>>task where one can say that MS just hacked together a few pieces of
> >>>>off-shelf software.  Just look at the effort required in OpenOffice to
> >>>>understand the nature of the task.  Other OS Vendors lost faith in the
> >>>>PC market - principal being IBM with a much superior offering of OS/2.
> >>>>MS continued developing both OS and App market, with entry barriers
> >>>>getting higher and higher for other players.  Sure they were
> >>>>monopolistic, but just look at Apple or IBM in similar circumstances
> >>>>and they are no different.
> >>>>

Its complete mis-conception that MS was only OS producer and came up
with application to support there Windows platform.

MS-Word, lot of people do'nt know started of as DOS software to kill
Word Perfect and Word Star.


> >>>>Software is not easy to develop, especially complex and large
> >>>>applications.  For example, GNU's Hurd kernel is years in making
> >>>>without any significant results.  It is just a damn tough job.  Linux
> >>>>enthusiasts will rave about Vi and Emacs, GNU CC and Make as all that
> >>>>you need to develop applications.  May be.  But MS's contribution,
> >>>>from a purely technical and developer producity viewpoint, in Visual
> >>>>Basic is just immense.  Nothing comes close in ease of developing a
> >>>>GUI app - whether free or proprietary application.  I know there is a
> >>>>ongoing Gambas project to close Visual Basic, but then like most open
> >>>>source projects it is a cloning effort.
> >>>>

Gambas  along with many other efforts are there to help developer
start of in open source development. IDLE and wing IDE for python,
Anjuta, glade, Kdevelop, QT designer for C/C++, Bluefish, Quanta for
web application development.

Visual basic might be a nice platform for 3 tier application
development, however if you look at it N tier application Microsoft
has not been able to come up with any development platform. I see VB's
success as a mixed bag because, it took Microsoft quite a while to get
out of VB frame of mind while applications have migrated from PC to
web.




> >>>>If we accuse of MS of rehashing and repackaging existing technology,
> >>>>open source software is no different with their best efforts being
> >>>>admirable clones (some better, some worse) of existing proprietary OSs
> >>>>or Applications.   While MS is a terrible company, a classic
> >>>>monopolist at many times, its historical role in bringing affordable
> >>>>computing to masses cannot be just wished away.

If cost of platform  was the only criterion, BBC computer, or Amiga
would be the most successful platform. But it had to do with opening
up of hardware architecture  hence vendor down you road could help you
out with support unlike amigas and BBC's

> >>>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>Hasit Seth
> >>>>
> >>>>

regards

Supreet